[Mr Rat]

 cherdano, on 2014-July-04, 18:10, said:

Oh dear - you don't even specify system in your original post, and now you lash out at me for assuming a "probably 9-card fit" rather than "certain 9-card fit". They could have a 4=4 fit (almost nobody needs 5 trumps to jump to 3M in a 4-card major system), they could have a 5=3 fit (you didn't tell us what 3S shows), they could have a 6=4 fit, they could have a 5=5 fit. Welcome to my ignore list.

In any case, passing is certainly right against some opponents and certainly wrong against others.

Lash out? Lol you'll know it when I lash out. It's clear that you don't understand the basis of this discussion so I'll trouble you no further.

If you'd read the OP properly you would see that it notes that the base system is not relevant, and why, but that may go over your head if you don't know what a pre-emptive 3♠ looks like and how it differs from an invitational 3♠. I'm not here to explain the difference in a forum that's labelled as being for expert players - and as a matter of policy I don't help people who rant at me.

I bear you no animosity, but I don't want to discuss this with you any further. If being on your "ignore list" means that I don't have to waste any more of my time on this standard of discussion, then I welcome that.

[Mr Rat]

 MrAce, on 2014-July-04, 20:02, said:

I know there is one bid that I would not even consider and it is 4♥

If I decide not to pass then I bid my cheapest 4 card suit. I already doubled 1♠ and if pd has 4 hearts he can bid it over my 4♣ anytime. This way you do not play a 3-3 or even 3-2 fit if opponents are joking with 8 cards and pd has 3244 10+hcp

I've edited the OP to use the hand editor, since the formatting seems to have caused some confusion.
West has not 'already doubled', he has passed over 1♠, then hears a pre-emptive 3♠ on his left, double from (unpassed) partner, pass from opener... to you.

[PhilKing]

It's probably best to play 3NT as pick a minor here, but you could also make a pretty good case for Lebensohl.

Playing "the gadget" you can get the best of both - a direct 4♦ is constructive. With a bad diamond hand we bid 3NT (minors) and remove clubs to diamonds, showing the weak hand - not diamonds and hearts.

So my choice here is 4♦ constructive.

[Mr Rat]

 PhilKing, on 2014-July-05, 04:31, said:

It's probably best to play 3NT as pick a minor here, but you could also make a pretty good case for Lebensohl.

Playing "the gadget" you can get the best of both - a direct 4♦ is constructive. With a bad diamond hand we bid 3NT (minors) and remove clubs to diamonds, showing the weak hand - not diamonds and hearts.

So my choice here is 4♦ constructive.

Interesting. Since this gadget means that you're giving up the ability to play 3N here (when West has something like ♠AQ ♥xxx ♦KTxx ♣JTxx), presumably that's in the belief that West will rarely have sufficient stoppers in their 9-card suit to make it worthwhile playing 3N in its natural sense on these auctions?

[PhilKing]

 Mr Rat, on 2014-July-05, 08:09, said:

Interesting. Since this gadget means that you're giving up the ability to play 3N here (when West has something like ♠AQ ♥xxx ♦KTxx ♣JTxx), presumably that's in the belief that West will rarely have sufficient stoppers in their 9-card suit to make it worthwhile playing 3N in its natural sense on these auctions?

I consulted my database and no one has ever bid 3NT to play in this auction within the last decade in top-level championship play. A couple of illustrative hands did catch my attention:

Gavin Wolpert held: ♠J2♥T62♦K964♣7432

He guessed to bid 4♦ and got smacked for 500. Partner held a less than ideal ♠T4♥AQJ8♦52♣AQJ85 on which 4♣ makes ten tricks. And no, they could not make 4♠.

On another hand Jassem held:♠93♥K♦T9763♣J9862

He did not guess - he bid 3NT for the minors and conceded 300 in 5♣ against a vulnerable making game.

Widening the search slightly to include 1♥-pass-3♥-x-pass, Bertens held: ♠A95♥AJ4♦J8543♣J4. He cued 4♥ and converted 5♣ to 5♦ down 2. The winning action was 3NT, but maybe that was not an option. If that is true he had another chance - pass would have gathered an easy 500.

[Mr Rat]

 PhilKing, on 2014-July-05, 11:23, said:

I consulted my database and no one has ever bid 3NT to play in this auction within the last decade in top-level championship play. A couple of illustrative hands did catch my attention:

Gavin Wolpert held: ♠J2♥T62♦K964♣7432

He guessed to bid 4♦ and got smacked for 500. Partner held a less than ideal ♠T4♥AQJ8♦52♣AQJ85 on which 4♣ makes ten tricks. And no, they could not make 4♠.

On another hand Jassem held:♠93♥K♦T9763♣J9862

He did not guess - he bid 3NT for the minors and conceded 300 in 5♣ against a vulnerable making game.

Widening the search slightly to include 1♥-pass-3♥-x-pass, Bertens held: ♠A95♥AJ4♦J8543♣J4. He cued 4♥ and converted 5♣ to 5♦ down 2. The winning action was 3NT, but maybe that was not an option. If that is true he had another chance - pass would have gathered an easy 500.

Your database looks pretty useful - is it your own creation or is it freely available?
Also, I'm wondering if its search facility is sophisticated enough to differentiate between 3M being pre-emptive versus invitational? The weakness of the first 2 hands (Wolpert & Jassem) makes me wonder if the 3♠ raises were actually systemically invitational.

The 1♥ - 3♥ sequence is a bit different, since we have an opportunity to double, cue and bid 3S mostly below game level, so there's less pressure. Partnerships need to agree what these bids show of course and I'm not sure many have discussed how good a hand each of these show and how it may change when the 3M is pre-emptive.

[PhilKing]

 Mr Rat, on 2014-July-05, 14:08, said:

Your database looks pretty useful - is it your own creation or is it freely available?
Also, I'm wondering if its search facility is sophisticated enough to differentiate between 3M being pre-emptive versus invitational? The weakness of the first 2 hands (Wolpert & Jassem) makes me wonder if the 3♠ raises were actually systemically invitational.

The 1♥ - 3♥ sequence is a bit different, since we have an opportunity to double, cue and bid 3S mostly below game level, so there's less pressure. Partnerships need to agree what these bids show of course and I'm not sure many have discussed how good a hand each of these show and how it may change when the 3M is pre-emptive.

The database is not freely available. Anyway, it contains fewer than 30000 deals, so it's not really large enough to examine auctions like this. This database will not grow much, since compromising the quality of play becomes an issue, but I might make a second one including weaker events to get 100k+ hands to examine more obscure situations.

I just looked at the equivalent heart auctions to see if there was a single instance of getting to 3NT.

And sorry - the Wolpert auction was against a limit raise. The second opposite a semi-pre raise, I think. The fact is, preemptive raises are not that common in championship play - they are more common amongst decent young tournament players. I could only find a handfull of genuinely weak raises, and 3NT was never in the frame.

[kgr]

 Mr Rat, on 2014-June-28, 07:46, said:

...[Question: how to get it to show a ? under West's 2nd bid]

---

Enter the hand with the hand diagram and then manually add the '?' at the end of the bidding:

hv=pc=n&w=st8hkj2dk863ckt76&d=s&v=0&b=11&a=1sp3s(Pre-emptive)dp?]133|200[/hv]

[dake50]

Do I assume ALL shapes are packed into partner's double? Or did he have some shapes shown with his 4C,4D (non-leaping Michaels, eg.)
I play a particular "Defense Against Opponents' Preempts", DAPO. Thus partner's double denies a 2-suiter, denies 6xH, by a process of elimination, he has bal without a S-stop, a 3-suiter with 4+H, or a 1-suiter strong enough to go 5C,5D,5H over their likely 4S and/or my likely response. Then I try 4C.

[phil_20686]

I think the only real choices are 4N and Pass. If you bid 4m its so easy to play there when 5m had play in the other minor. Its easy to imagine partner holding 14(35).

Regards the law. On a given deal total tricks is within one trick of the Law total only like 60% of the time. You can easily have hands with two eight card fits where neither team can make 2x.

I like to pass these in general. If you are not afraid to concede some double partscores you do tend to pick up some good results. I would say here that partner rates to have a pretty good hand if he has two spades. If he has only one spade then he can have less. If partner has some 2434 15 count you will be well in the money by passing usually, and its hard to imagine making anything. If he is 13(54) you are really going to wish that you had bid.....

PhilKing's gadget is sensible.